Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

But they photograph very nicely. And since that's what most fans do when they visit the model, how is that a problem?

At no time in the production of Trek TOS did the Enterprise look even remotely like that. And fans are supposed to be grateful?

And, no doubt, it can be repainted in a flat grey again next time it's restored. But pics taken of that harshly lit model, as it appeared from the 70s till 1991, weren't very flattering. It wasn't possible to light it the way that it would be lit for SPFX shots in the 60s.

That's bull. That was the original color, unless you seriously want to claim, that all the original markings down to the small print at the saucer's underside were painstakingly recreated after such a previous paint job.

Sorry, no. The only part of the ship that was not repainted - and more than once - was the top surface of the saucer, the bridge and the teardrop-shaped bubble it rests on. That's just the truth. I know; you don't.

TREK_GOD_1 wrote:

It is hard to show complete gratitude...

It always is; it always is.

Nonetheless, that would be the appropriate response for an effort, undertaken for the relative pittance that NASM was willing to "invest," that rescued the "precious shrine" from a future in storage or the scrap heap.

Therin of Andor wrote:

And, no doubt, it can be repainted in a flat grey again...

Exactly. It's a paint job, undertaken during the process of saving the model from ongoing deterioration and decades of neglect.

But all some people have done for two decades is kvetch and whine about it.

There are some other minor inaccuracies in the restoration, BTW. The research the museum had undertaken on the model was limited. When they started out they didn't even know who had built it.

Therin of Andor wrote:

No, as far as I know, the model went from the ceiling of the flight exhibit, to off-display (November 1991-August 1992), and then to the lower level of the gift shop, fully restored.

If he saw it in 1990 before the big anniversary Star Trek exhibit that included all the props and costumes then he saw it pre-restoration. It did look, as he says, terrible. It was always being moved from one place to another to make way for more important exhibits. Toward the last they stopped running the internal lights, just taping up the opening on the port side where the cable was run out to a power source.

The spinning nacelle effect never worked prior to the Miarecki restoration. The model arrived at NASM with the nacelle caps smashed and the mechanism broken; they put painted domes on the nacelles, plugged in the cables and whatever lights happened to be working were what they used. At one point I think they did stick some flashing light bulbs behind the domes.

After the annversary exhibit ended the ship went on a national tour with many of the other elements of the exhibit. It was displayed suspended from cables attached to a plexiglass "cradle" to support the saucer and nacelles. The cradle was custom fabricated by a company near College Park, MD.

AFAIK, the cradle support system hasn't been used at any time since the model was returned to display at NASM. That's somewhat a shame, because the model is disintegrating again. It's not immediately evident, certainly not in all photos, but the saucer is sagging forward of its own weight; the nacelles are sagging out of alignment; laminate is peeling off bits like the impulse engines and windows are slipping out of place. This model wasn't built to last fifty years. The materials used were too heavy and not strong enough to support it.

Really the only thing that would stabilize it long-term would be to tear it apart and build it up on a metal armature - essentially, using the "skin" - which would be mega expensive and might violate the museum's archival standards.

Will the Smithsonian spend big bucks to rescue this thing a second time? Don't hold your breath.

Regarding the "Ship of Theseus" paradox, it looks like the original metal frame is that which survives. Having 1:1 replacement wood components and an accurate paint job is essential, and probably a lot harder than it sounds.

The woman who owned it for the last 20 years asked the Smithsonian how much she could replace and still call it a restoration. I think they told her as long as it's more than 50% original, it was good.

I really hate to be negative, and nitpicky, but if you have to remove every single piece of wood and other material down to the bare frame, and replace it, then you are not really "restoring" the original. You are "rebuilding" the original from new components. Which is still cool, but not at all the same thing. To say "this is the original set/prop used for filming" is not entirely accurate at that point, IMHO.

Having said that, though, I still think it's a cool project, and I wish you well with it.

Will the Smithsonian spend big bucks to rescue this thing a second time? Don't hold your breath.

The woman in the gift shop said that, only a few weeks ago, some Museum staff were standing around the model, discussing where might be a better place for it than forgotten on the often-deserted bottom level of the gift shop. But it wasn't sounding hopeful. She was glad for me I'd finally gotten to see it again.

When I originally saw the studio model Enterprise, it was near a side room containing a few costumes and small props. One of the engineering suits from ST:TMP was there, and I was surprised it was heavy cloth instead of some sort of polyester as I'd thought. The series' Klingon ship wasn't there, but I think there was a notice about its absence. The same thing happened when I looked for Howdy Doody at one of the other Mall museums, but some M*A*S*H sets and Archie Bunker's chair were there and Chris Reeve's Superman costume.

I really hate to be negative, and nitpicky, but if you have to remove every single piece of wood and other material down to the bare frame, and replace it, then you are not really "restoring" the original. You are "rebuilding" the original from new components. Which is still cool, but not at all the same thing. To say "this is the original set/prop used for filming" is not entirely accurate at that point, IMHO.

Having said that, though, I still think it's a cool project, and I wish you well with it.

This is the problem all museum facilities face when considering preservation vs. restoration, very well boiled-down in the "grandfather's axe" aphorism above. My own choice is the real thing, with all its blemishes, as an historic artifact from 1960s Hollywood.

The great thing about paint is that... it can be stripped and repainted again, and again...

So yeah, Ed took a little artistic license. You know what I interpreted it as? AGING. It's not clean and spit polish shiny any more; it's a museum relic starship. The lines are visible. To show contempt for Ed doing this is just... well, is such out of whack perspective. If Ed didn't take up the charge, the ship would've been consigned to some non-paid volunteer who probably would have done a hack job on it. "Golly gee Elmer, lookee here, I done fixed up th' Enterprise--Star Track ENTERPRISE!!"

Sorry for the bad quality but these were taken in uh, I think summer of 1978 when I went to the Smithsonian for the first time. I was THRILLED to see the ship as I was a huge Trekkie even back then.

T'Bonz, your set looks a lot like the pics I took as a kid in 1974. At that time the model was displayed level and high up enough that you couldn't see the top of the saucer. I also recall something blocked us from seeing the taped-up port side; it was too close to the wall or something:

The original main deflector dish and nacelle domes were lost in California somehow, and this exhibit shows the Smithsonian's first, inaccurate replacements.

T'Bonz, your set looks a lot like the pics I took as a kid in 1974. At that time the model was displayed level and high up enough that you couldn't see the top of the saucer.

Very nice pictures, I'd also like to recommend Phil Broad's collection.
When in 1974 did you take these pictures? Wasn't the Enterprise a new attraction for the Bicentennial in 1976 (that's when I took my first pictures)?

ZapBrannigan wrote:

The original main deflector dish and nacelle domes were lost in California somehow, and this exhibit shows the Smithsonian's first, inaccurate replacements.

The miniature arrived with some shipping damage 03-01-74 at the Smithsonian and underwent curatorial inspection by F.C. Durant III, assistant director of Astronautics of the Smithsonian Institution.

Rogay Inc. got the job to replace the missing pieces and Durant was specific that the exterior of the nacelle caps was to be frosted and the interior to be painted with amber lacquer.
Durant wasn't happy about their restoration job: "The paint used by Rogay was turkey red, the exterior is not frosted as requested."
What I really appreciate was Mr. Durant's mission goal: "We are most anxious to exhibit this model in its original studio condition as nearly as feasible."

Bob

__________________
"The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth" Jean-Luc Picard
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein